Well, they say that democracy is a contat sport
So lers see what Montesquiu had to say about this
-------------
As soon as man enters into a state of society he loses the sense of his weakness; equality ceases, and then commences the state of war.
Each particular society begins to feel its strength, whence arises a state of war between different nations. The individuals likewise of each society become sensible of their force; hence the principal advantages of this society they endeavour to convert to their own emolument, which constitutes a state of war between individuals.
These two different kinds of states give rise to human laws. Considered as inhabitants of so great a planet, which necessarily contains a variety of nations, they have laws relating to their mutual intercourse, which is what we call the law of nations. As members of a society that must be properly supported, they have laws relating to the governors and the governed, and this we distinguish by the name of politic law. They have also another sort of law, as they stand in relation to each other; by which is understood the civil law.
--------------
He fully understood that society is a collection of people whio are at conflict with one another and this is a conflict for resources and materials Of course men and women organize into states and in time those states will fight for reserouces hence your need for... and in this Hobbesian world of conflict for conflict sake is where most men are,
In many ways this is the Conservative view point, Whther it was expressed by Hobes or Burke or Rush,,, it is the ME and I avove the we
And he rights about this
-------------
Better is it to say, that the government most conformable to nature is that which best agrees with the humour and disposition of the people in whose favour it is established.
The strength of individuals cannot be united without a conjunction of all their wills. "The conjunction of those wills," as Gravina again very justly observes, "is what we call the civil state."
Law in general is human reason, inasmuch as it governs all the inhabitants of the earth: the political and civil laws of each nation ought to be only the particular cases in which human reason is applied.
They should be adapted in such a manner to the people for whom they are framed that it should be a great chance if those of one nation suit another.
-------------------
Here we are seeing the beginng of those positive laws and how they are about a we, and not an I or Me. The nation is made by individuals who lend it strenth, and make it an us
Then he writes about Governemnt:
Book II.
Of Laws Directly Derived from the Nature of Government
1. Of the Nature of the three different Governments. There are three species of government: republican, monarchical, and despotic. In order to discover their nature, it is sufficient to recollect the common notion, which supposes three definitions, or rather three facts: that a republican government is that in which the body, or only a part of the people, is possessed of the supreme power; monarchy, that in which a single person governs by fixed and established laws; a despotic government, that in which a single person directs everything by his own will and caprice.
This is what I call the nature of each government; we must now inquire into those laws which directly conform to this nature, and consequently are the fundamental institutions.
2. Of the Republican Government, and the Laws in relation to Democracy.1 When the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power, it is called a democracy. When the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a part of the people, it is then an aristocracy.
In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others the subject.
There can be no exercise of sovereignty but by their suffrages, which are their own will; now the sovereign's will is the sovereign himself. The laws therefore which establish the right of suffrage are fundamental to this government. And indeed it is as important to regulate in a republic, in what manner, by whom, to whom, and concerning what, suffrages are to be given, as it is in a monarchy to know who is the prince, and after what manner he ought to govern.
----------
Notice he realizes that there rae three types of government and that these three governments are at times oposing to each other... By the way, Leo Strauss is a fan of what Montesquiu would call despotic givernment, where the ruler has nothing to owe to the suject.
In fact, while Montesquiu was a fan of Democratic government in an ideal way, he never expereinced it, Leo Strauus, a father of the Neo Con movement distrusts democracy, with a small d. He does not believe the people have a say. In fact the people should be guided and prodded,
According to Drury, Strauss's attitude towards liberal democracy was at the root of this thought. "Strauss abhorred liberal democracy because he associated it with the Weimar Republic whose constitution was drafted at the end of World War I."
http://www.swans.com/library/art11/mdolin10.htmlSo when you start discussing the nature of the American state and how it has changed, we have gone from the principles of the Enlightenment to a more Hobesian view of the world, where the people are to be guided, scorned and prevented from exercising real power.
Oh and for The laws, here you go, a link
http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol_02.htm